Can M.J. Come Out and Play? / 2-20-11

Quick, get your pot now, while it's still cheap.

And still illegal. You know, if you like the risk factor.

Because the end of Pot Prohibition is at hand. (Optional joke: We're going to turn can'tabis into cannabis!)

Anyway, The Economist (worthless gossip tabloid) and YouGov (legitimate market research gurus and polling pros) released a poll earlier this month that shows a majority of Americans favor decriminalizing marijuana and letting the government treat it "like alcohol and tobacco."

Not just a small majority, either. 58 percent favor decriminalization if the parameters are set just right, with the feds taxing it, regulating it, and keeping it out of bounds for minors. 23 percent oppose such a plan.

Breaking down the numbers, 60 percent (!) of respondents ages 34-60 came out in favor of legalizing pot.

More breaking down: the poll's very first question shows that respondents have a mostly unfavorable view of President Obama. These aren't a bunch of hippies and twentysomethings in this sample.

Now granted, a different wording of the same question will get a different result.

"Should potheads get out of jail free?" will score less than 40 percent.

"Should marijuana be made legal?" will score, most times, 40-50 percent of the vote. It did so in a Gallup poll in October of last year with a healthy 46 percent.

"Should marijuana be regulated in the same way as alcohol?" will score the highest. As it did here.

(Bonus Fun Fact: "Should alcohol be made illegal?" scores very high among people living in the 1920's.)

But what is most striking about the numbers is the margin. 58 percent is a strong majority, for sure, but 23 percent against is a puny, sad minority. A minority which won't go mellowly into the night, let's be honest; but if there's something politicians are good at, it's reading polls. 58-23.

58-23. (58-23!)

If another reputable polling outfit can duplicate the same result (without too much cheating), then game over on a national level.

(P.S.: Cool state-by-state info available here.)

Observacations / 1-17-11

Been out of the office for a while. But now, break time's over, ladies and laddies.

So, did anything happen since we last spoke?

Oh. Uh-huh. Mm. 'K.

Well then, I'll touch on three topics, but not at once, because my attention span isn't what it used...

Yeah. Three rounds of politics today. A sports trifecta tomorrow. Spirituality season starts Wednesday. Then we'll be all caught up, you and me.

HOLY BEDFELLOWS, BATMAN

Well, in smack-myself-across-the-forehead news, I found myself, this holiday season, agreeing with -- wait for it -- Pat -- wait for it some more, juuust a little tiny bit more -- Robertson. Not once, but twice.

The first time was no shocker: When P-Rob declared that 2011 would not mark the end of the world, I co-nodded graciously. (No matter how many times a public figure says God likes to kill people for other people's behavior [here's your link, you're welcome], there comes a time when something resembling reason is bound to exit his speaking organs.) And after all, the man has probably read his Mayan Calendar 2012 (365 apocalyptic thoughts for every situation, $399.95 on Amazon.con), so best check back in with him for all your Armageddon needs in a year.

But the second time he and I linked minds... that was stupefying. Said Robertson: "I just believe that criminalizing marijuana, criminalizing the possession of a few ounces of pot and that kind of thing, I mean, it's just costing us a fortune and it's ruining young people." Even after his spokesman managed to float a near-lie to backtrack, claiming Pat "unequivocally stated that he is against the use of illegal drugs," I find myself aghast at my tattered and shredded view of the religio-conservative icon. He even went on to suggest that treatment, not incarceration, could be a better reaction to weed possession.

For twenty years, I've denounced the man. (Get it? 420 years?) And now he does this? Jerk.

That one took me a while to recover from.

RAINBOW WARRIORS

Speaking of things that failed to cause the end of civilization, discrimination against gay soldiers is officially on its way out. And none too soon. Turns out that the judicial, legislative and executive branches all have struck it down; thus, the DoD is phasing it out over the next few months. Let's be real: polling shows that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Do Discriminate" (not the policy's actual name) had fallen seriously out of favor with a vast majority of the population. As such, the policy's demise was inevitable, but nonetheless, I'd like to advance a theory that casts Democrats in a favorable light here.

I submit:

House Democrats, late in the lame-duck session, cleverly fooled congressional Republicans into believing they would block the extension of the Baby Bush tax cuts for another two years. This after the Senate had declined to consider lifting DADT. AND after President Obama had come out supporting a tax cut extension, however tepidly. But what did the outgoing House D's have to lose? They were already about to lose their majority -- at least they could go down swinging while satisfying the far left. (Me!) While pissing off incoming Weeper of the House John "Boo-Hoo" Boehner (R-Ocryo).

Well, when negotiators discussed how to break the impasse, Democrats said that another vote in the Senate on DADT would probably pacify. Republicans, knowing popular opinion would only continue to cut against them, and wishing to fry other fish in the upcoming session, acquiesced, and framed the issue to cast moderate Republicans (in blue states) as the driving force.

And DADT dies.

It's a pretty theory. One that allows my wing to look good, and astute, too, while much, much, much more importantly, concluding another contemptible chapter in Amalgamated American Institutional Discrimination Against Gays, Inc.

CIVILITEA PARTY

In the wake of yet another mass shooting (yes, I'm gingerly approaching the Tucson mess), the usual voices have made / will make themselves heard.

"We need more gun control!" (True, but get real.)

"We need more guns!" (Seriously?)

"Give him the death penalty!" (Iron. E.)

"It's her fault!" (Not the time or place, idjits.)

"It's not my fault!" (Shut up.)

"He's a right-wing terrorist!" (5... 4... 3... 2... 1...)

"He's a left-wing terrorist!" (Toldja.)

"What we need is more civility." (Pshaw--wait, what?)

We'll get more civility in our political discourse, actually. Just like we did after 9/11. Then with the distance of time, we'll revert to our hyper-partisan ways, present company included, and it'll be as if Tucson never happened. Then, fatalistically, the process will restart with another tragedy. You can hope that it doesn't take place in your neighborhood. Good luck with that.

Happy New Year.

Things that go "bong" in the night / 5-8-09

The rumors are all true: I've never smoked any weed. Never touched any illegal drugs, and I mean that literally. Caught a whiff of a joint once in an adjacent room. Didn't inhale.

But people, come on, really, can't we just stop prosecuting Americans who smoke pot?

I will leave the moral dimension of the argument for another day. I will leave the dilemma of impaired drivers by the wayside. For now. What I WILL do is talk about finances.

It costs this nation about $8 billion annually in prosecution costs and another billion in incarceration to wage war on potheads.

Certainly, mandated treatment is a real cost. Surely there exists a burden on business, when employees are jailed and/or terminated for weed-related offenses.

And think of the other side of the balance sheet: all that lost revenue. The grass tax. It's not just a catchy slogan. It could pay for programs. In a real shocker, California is considering this course of action.

Oh, and you want to make a real impact in the long-term budget, Mr. President? Legalize weed. (He's not going to do it. But maybe someday, someone in power will have the balls or the ovaries to try.)

And by the way, this crackdown on pot users, how well is it working? This well: 94 million of us are or have been users. But now I'm in Tangentville, and I semi-promised to argue for legalization on financial merits only. It'll take an awfully good counterargument to change my mind, but bring it on.

Bonus item: A variety of polls shows a variety of levels of support for legalization. What these polls don't show is that the issue is cut-and-dried.

Finally, a bit of full disclosure is in order: This post was not sponsored by Frito-Lay.